The Four Horsemen of the Gender-Critical Apocalypse

submitted by alttrawl from uncommongroundmedia.com

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]worried19 16 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Eh, I just don't think it's productive to alienate the few trans allies we have. No human being is perfect. There are natal women who claim to be gender critical feminists that I've seen saying problematic things, too. In my opinion, the last thing we need is purity tests. It's better to have imperfect trans allies than none at all.

[–]Sarah1488 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They are not allies, they are enemies to all women.

[–]worried19 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I strongly disagree. Trans people are not my enemy. I consider gender the real enemy, not the people who believe in it.

[–]lefterfield 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Eh. I agree that there's no such thing as "good trans" or "bad trans" because gender isn't real and sex can't be changed. I don't need to know that these are flawed, imperfect humans to know that - and I hope no GC feminist does. I watch Blaire's videos occasionally because he's entertaining and I agree with most of the things he says, and I can appreciate that he reaches people that radfems don't about the most harmful parts of trans ideology. Beyond that I don't care about him.

[–]MonstrousRegiment 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I confess I didn't read all of this article. It's probably not wrong about these people, but all this is a distraction from what we need to do. "Good" and "bad" trans people are really irrelevant to our liberation struggle. Why give them all this attention?

[–]MinisterOfTerfery 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I agree with this article even if I think the writer was a bit harsh singling out the trans people in the article. When GC women were falling over themselves to donate to Fionne I had second hand embarrassment, it seemed like a desperation to prove they are not transphobic because "look, we donate money to good trans people!"

[–]jet199 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think it's more a split between people who think body dysmophia should be fixed with surgery and those who don't. I don't so I would never donate but if others did it doesn't really bother me. I wouldn't read any more into it than that.

[–]BEB 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

My issue with these TiMs is that they're constantly approached by the media, and even other GC feminists, as if their opinions matter more than ours. Rose of Dawn and three (?) other men were brought on UK TV to discuss J.K. Rowling, and then J.K. sent him roses.

What about all those thousands of British feminists out there slogging through the hard work of fighting back, all the while risking losing their jobs and friends and getting death and rape threats?

Why are these men looked at as the experts and given the platform to discuss with other men their effect on our rights?

Otherwise, I feel bad for these men (and Buck) that they hate their bodies and themselves as much as they do, and wish them luck and peace within themselves. The same thing I wish everyone, actually.

[–]NecessaryScene1 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

My issue with these TiMs is that they're constantly approached by the media

None of those 4 are. At least, I've never seen them in the media. There are others, like Debbie Hayton in particular.

And I don't recall the last time I saw a TiF on TV - that article was complaining about 2 TiFs and 2 TiMs.

Why are these men looked at as the experts and given the platform to discuss with other men their effect on our rights?

Because they're male and trans. From a quota point of view the program is going to want a trans person on - and I'd rather they invited Rose of Dawn than Munroe Bergdorf. As this is being framed as "trans" rights it's good for our side to show the dissenting trans voices. It's counterproductive to then have a go at the trans people who come on fighting our side. If the author got their way and stopped them, you'd just get TiMs from the other side instead.

But it would be nice to have a FEMALE trans person for a change. And just more women generally. Get away from the "just about trans" framing. It's about vulnerable women even more than "vulnerable trans".

It is ridiculous how male these discussions usually are. But it's not these 4 people's fault.

I agree with some of the points of the article. But no need to bully individuals (often with some quite unfair mischaracterisations). It's wrong, and it makes us look bad.

[–]BEB 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I kind of scanned the article, because I felt it was unduly harsh at points, and I don't know enough about any of these people to pass judgement, which I probably wouldn't anyway. Also, in the US, I can't think of anyone GC who is getting a mainstream platform- Tims, TiFs, other women... no one. Well, maybe Blair White, but I don't count him as GC really.

My point, which I should have made much clearer, was more that it seemed to me as if UK TiMs like Debbie Hayton and Rose of Dawn and Kinisis (?) and Miranda Yardley and Fionne seem to be given a lot of space to voice their views, both by the media and by GC feminists themselves. These TiMs all seem to be nice people and genuinely concerned for women's rights, dignity, privacy and safety, but they're not women, and I feel that the media platforming them is just another example of misogyny. And I know it's not their fault, I just find it irritating.

[–]NecessaryScene1 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, and that's perfectly fair. All those all-male discussion panels about women's fundamental rights. Utterly aggravating.

But there are an awful lot of ways to write an article about that which wouldn't be... that article.

And the optics are just horrible. I was on the GC/radfem side basically immediately as soon as I became aware of the fight because I could see how each side was approaching it. The TRA side was repellent. My natural inclination was that the GC side's demands sounded utterly reasonable, but I had to check how much they were operating in good faith. Did TRAs' claims about TERFs have any basis?

If there was any significant number of articles like that around I would have been far more resistant to this side. The near-total lack of them gave a lot of reassurance about good faith/intentions and that it wasn't just trans-bashing.

Think about the lurkers/undecideds.

[–]BEB 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here in the US, the big issue is that there is no visibility of GC thought beyond, ironically, conservative media.

And, besides WoLF (rad fem Women's Liberation Front) it's been conservative and religious groups and politicians fighting Trans, Inc.

The Democrats, the mainstream and liberal US media, corporations, gay and womens' rights groups, academia -- all of them won't even allow GC feminists, parents and even gay men, a GC voice. NOTHING.

So the vast majority of Americans have no idea that anything is going on, although they're starting to get a clue because of sports, school bathrooms and their churches/mosques/synagogues - many Americans are quite religious.

In the US, IMO, we need to concentrate our efforts on increasing Americans knowledge of Trans, Inc., rapidly and stealthily rewriting US laws that protect women, gay men, parents, free speech, scientific truth and children.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My issue with these TiMs is that they're constantly approached by the media

None of those 4 are. At least, I've never seen them in the media. There are others, like Debbie Hayton in particular.

Maybe you're living under a rock then. Buck Angel has been in tons of mainstream and niche, alternative media of all kinds - written news stories, profiles, documentaries, extensive photo shoots - over the years; and in Buck's myriad media appearances Buck has always been lionized. Also, since going trans Buck has made her living as a porn star; porn is a kind of media, innit?

Scott Newgent has also been in the media quite a lot of late.

https://news.yahoo.com/j-k-rowling-vs-woke-175849287.html

http://www.cbc-network.org/2020/04/im-transgender-and-i-oppose-the-medical-transition-of-children/

https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/bill-criminalizing-gender-surgery-on-minors-goes-to-house/article_36b8ad4c-12c8-563c-a67c-595973e0ba7b.html

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/j-k-rowling-vs-woke-supremacy/

https://www.inforum.com/news/government-and-politics/4876571-Vulnerable-Child-Protection-Act-passes-through-committee

https://youtu.be/Lly1prUzksI

https://feministlegal.org/interview-with-scott-newgent/

https://glinner.co.uk/interview-with-scott-newgent/

I'm glad both Buck Angel and Scott Newgent are speaking out against the transing of kids and the demonizing of women who oppose the tyrrany of extreme gender ideology. But to say that neither one has ever been approached by media, nor appeared in media, is factually inaccurate.

It's counterproductive to then have a go at the trans people who come on fighting our side.

Also, yes it's probably counterproductive to publicly portray these trans people in a negative light, or to question their behaviors and motivations, cuz nowadays trans people are the sacred caste who cannot be criticized or in any way held accountable for their actions or publicly-espoused views like the rest of us are.

But at the same time, it's naive to characterize any of these four individuals as "fighting (for or on I think you meant) our side." They may be on "our side" in certain limited areas - such as when it comes to medically transing kids, or believing that free speech is a good thing, or agreeing that sex is real, and that males shouldn't be competing in female sports.

But these individuals are all still very steeped in, and wedded to, regressive and harmful genderist ideology. And through their examples and all the material they have put out or participated in, Buck Angel, Hayton and Blaire White all have long histories of openly, enthusiatically promoting rigid sex stereotypes and attitudes that are misogynistic and both male & trans supremacist. Though Newgent has only begun trying to become a public figure much more recently, she has bought into regressive, misogynistic, male supremacist gender ideology and exemplified it and modeled it as well. And all of them have intentionally promoted their deeply sexist, anti-woman ideas to young people, too.

Just a year ago, Buck Angel publicly backed TRAs who complained about trans people's double mastectomies and implant surgeries not being prioritized over surgeries for women diagnosed with potentially fatal breast cancers. Citing the usual fake suicides stats that TRAs employ, Buck tweeted this:

The fucking ignorance! Suicide is the number one killer of trans people. Without breast implants we die!!! Jesus fucking christ😡😡😡😡😡😡😡

https://twitter.com/buckangel/status/1179145782584168448?lang=en

[–]NecessaryScene1 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think that's the single most unpleasant, anti-trans article I've seen from the GC side in the 3 or so years I've been following this. Yuck.

This is "us" at our worst.

There are some reasonable points in there, but so many straw men, false dichotomies and just unnecessary personal attacks. It's almost a caricature of everything they say about TERFs. This is not a pro-women article, it really is just anti-trans.

But at least it helps throw into relief the comparison with the anti-women stuff from the other side - that's so regular and reflexive and totally accepted. But I always found the comparison difficult to even assess - I was wondering if I was just not seeing our side's sins. I have now.

[–]lefterfield 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, and unlike with the trans crowd, few here seem to like this article at all.

[–]EndTheTransPandemic 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Never trust transgender ‘allies’, they are just wolves in sheeps clothing.

Blaire White is just doing it as a fetish, he doesn’t care.

Fionne is just in it for money.

“Buck” angel is a pornstar that gets off on it.

And “Debbie” is just a predator.

[–]materialrealityplz 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with the Blaire White part. He looks like a pornified woman. Just because he says he's male people give him a pass... what a low bar. :/

I had no idea Buck was in porn... and even defends it.. D:

We say that gender identity is a fiction and sex is real – so we cannot behave as if that’s true for everyone except these beloved four horsemen and other ‘trans’ figures like them who seem to be “true trans.”

But they also say sex is real? idk. This is where it gets blurry. These people accept their biological reality, that's really the sticking point for me. That's the core of the insanity. If they want to look like a man or a woman when they are not... well. We can't really stop people from doing that if they truly want to. I mean, I do find Blaire's porn look gross, personally. Buck does look like a man, however she identifies. 'Gender identity' might be bullshit, but Buck does come across looking like a man.

Trans people exist and aren't going to away even when the current trend of every other person being trans fads away. They do the important thing of acknowledging their natal sex and get a ton of shit for it from TRAs.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

we cannot be in the business of sorting “trans” people into “good trans” and “bad trans”

There is no good/bad dichotomy here; there is a rational/psychotic dichotomy, and the GC crew is not doing the sorting.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

These interviews Erin Brewer did with the author Joey Brite give a better sense of where she's coming from than this one article does:

https://youtu.be/PKWqWqOv9yg

https://youtu.be/0cJ7v78Ir0g

[–]cupcake_lover 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Meh... It certainly is important to not go wild with unconditional support for any trans person that supports the GC position, but "horsemen of the apocalypse"? Really? As if politicians only ever talk to politicians they agree with! But the article does make a strong point about Buck Angel, who accused Rose Kalemba of LYING about her gang rape and supports Pornhub ☠️